An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Trying to explain one more time (last one for today).
Specific alignment mechanics are irrelevant. What the Paladin has is his ethos and moral standards. These are *essential* to the class. If a "paladin" stops having that, it's not a paladin anymore.
By lifting down this ethos and moral, and turn the class into a "champion of whatever we feel like it" is Not changing the class, or "broadening its reach", or anything like that. It is *destroying* the original class, and building *another* one from the ground up, and stealing the name of the previous class, to add insult upon injury!
I'll never accept that, and I'll always speak against this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Trying to explain one more time (last one for today).

Specific alignment mechanics are irrelevant. What the Paladin has is his ethos and moral standards. These are *essential* to the class. If a "paladin" stops having that, it's not a paladin anymore.
By lifting down this ethos and moral, and turn the class into a "champion of whatever we feel like it" is Not changing the class, or "broadening its reach", or anything like that. It is *destroying* the original class, and building *another* one from the ground up, and stealing the name of the previous class, to add insult upon injury!
I'll never accept that, and I'll always speak against this.

So call the non-LG variants something else. What's in a set of mechanics?

And let's not try to argue that a class should be more powerful because it has a more restrictive alignment. One, no class should be more powerful than another of the same level; aside from everything else it makes levels themselves pointless. Two, many other classes are more powerful than 3.PF Paladins and don't come with the same restrictions. Three, this attitude implies that (for example) Monks should be more powerful than Barbarians—after all, their alignment is harder to maintain.


Orthos wrote:

I think a big part of he opposition to an exclusively LG Paladin these days comes down to a larger segment of the player base... Well, to be blunt... Hating Lawful alignments.

More than once I have seen people on this forum rant that Lawful is as bad as Evil in their sight, and/or that they cannot reconcile the restrictive mentality of a Lawful alignment with their own understanding of what Goodness is. NG and CG are more and more becoming the popular way of playing a Heroic Character, and many people reject the goodness of an LG one as being too restricted by their codes and philosophy to truly be the hero the players desire.

It's by far not the only reason, but I dare say it's certainly a contributing factor in the overall culture of the gamer populace.

Which I think is flawed reasoning to say the least since chaos is just...bleh, IMO. But it is what it is.


Athaleon wrote:
So call the non-LG variants something else.

Or... We keep things like PF and the only non-LG Paladins are rare archetypes that are weaker than true LG Paladins because their powers don't work right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Trying to explain one more time (last one for today).

Specific alignment mechanics are irrelevant. What the Paladin has is his ethos and moral standards. These are *essential* to the class. If a "paladin" stops having that, it's not a paladin anymore.
By lifting down this ethos and moral, and turn the class into a "champion of whatever we feel like it" is Not changing the class, or "broadening its reach", or anything like that. It is *destroying* the original class, and building *another* one from the ground up, and stealing the name of the previous class, to add insult upon injury!
I'll never accept that, and I'll always speak against this.

But why do these "ethos and moral standards" that are *essential* to the class have to be tied directly to just alignment? Why can't their ethos and moral standards be tied to their deity? The direct source of their power and reason for action. Why should a paladin of Calistria or Desna be LG?

A paladin should be a paragon of their deity. They should be a mortal representation of these ideals on the material plane and in the battlefield. The best way to do that is to properly represent their deity and alignment should be one of those aspects.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
So call the non-LG variants something else.
Or... We keep things like PF and the only non-LG Paladins are rare archetypes that are weaker than true LG Paladins because their powers don't work right.

Or not.

I have yet to see a proper answer from you explaining why the Antipaladin and its Tyrant variant have very closely analogous mechanics to the Paladin without being both Lawful and Good.

Grey Paladins could be said to be weaker mechanically because they have a relaxed set of possible alignments that may include Neutral elements. Also, no one ever plays them.


Athaleon wrote:


So call the non-LG variants something else. What's in a set of mechanics?

And let's not try to argue that a class should be more powerful because it has a more restrictive alignment. One, no class should be more powerful than another of the same level; aside from everything else it makes levels themselves pointless. Two, many other classes are more powerful than 3.PF Paladins and don't come with the same restrictions. Three, this attitude implies that (for example) Monks should be more powerful than Barbarians—after all, their alignment is harder to maintain.

First: Calling them others names is fine, as long as they are *Exceptions* compared to the norm, and be separated from the Paladin, fluff-wise. Although, I would rather get new classes for the concepts many people want.

Second: I have never told about Paladins being stronger, or about any balance consideration.

Texas Snyper wrote:


But why do these "ethos and moral standards" that are *essential* to the class have to be tied directly to just alignment? Why can't their ethos and moral standards be tied to their deity? The direct source of their power and reason for action. Why should a paladin of Calistria or Desna be LG?

A paladin should be a paragon of their deity. They should be a mortal representation of these ideals on the material plane and in the battlefield. The best way to do that is to properly represent their deity and alignment should be one of those aspects.

Paladin’s ethos are not any ethos, or ethos of (any) deities. They’re already defined by now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Second: I have never told about Paladins being stronger, or about any balance consideration.

The post seemed to imply that the Paladin's class mechanics were a major part of what defined the class, such that a Chaotic Good 'Liberator' with mostly the same mechanics (Find/Replace Law with Chaos) is an abomination whether or not you "add insult to injury" by calling it a Paladin as well. In my experience, people who think that tend to frame it in terms of balance considerations (i.e. "we cannot allow the Munchkins to get their grubby hands on Divine Grace").

Nevertheless, it's an argument I wanted to head off.

Edit: See HWalsh's post below this one, specifically the line about "players who want the power without the price".


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
So call the non-LG variants something else.
Or... We keep things like PF and the only non-LG Paladins are rare archetypes that are weaker than true LG Paladins because their powers don't work right.

Why? Honestly, why?

We've had paladins roughly the same for the last three or more decades. Tradition, such as it is, has run its course. It also amuses and amazes me that there is a call to keep them the same (for tradition's sake) but not TOO the same (because those were old ideas!)

Even if the entire idea is changed in PF2.0 there is nothing stopping you from playing a LG version of this class. It will undoubtedly be an archetype, a prestige class, or some work around to make it the way it used to be (more or less.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose the purpose of this kind of threads is to try to show Paizo how much love with in the player base a certain mechanic has (or has not), so they can "count votes" and act in concordance.

If so, my vote is Paladins should die in a pile of fire. We recently had a very good Strange Aeaon Adventure Path in my group. As always happens with Paizo's APs, there were a couple of very interesting situations where the players had to think about nuanced moral grey situations. Such as dealing with clearly dangerous and mad people to get things back, delving into necromantic evil books, trading with evil creatures, and more.

By "very interesting situations" I mean "they would be interesting situations if the group did not have a Paladin". There were other LG players in the group. Also NG, and N. Some of them wanted to debate if they should or should not do those "necessary evil to defeat a greater evil" stuff that Paizo loves to put in their APs. But we also had a Paladin. Who loses his powers if he do un-paladin things, turning him into a walking beatstick with no purpose. So everybody set aside the moral debate, because they had a paladin and they did not want to screw the paladin player.

Paladin code of honor isn't bad. It's similar to, say, playing a character with addherence to Bushido, or whatever. However, tying that code of honor into the mechanics, (such as "you lose all your powers if you do X"), means THE ENTIRE GROUP is forced to play a certain way, without exploring other options.

That sucks.

So count this post as a plea to change Paladins adherence to LG, with mechanics tied to it, Paizo.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

KILL ALIGNMENTS PLEASE


Athaleon wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Second: I have never told about Paladins being stronger, or about any balance consideration.

The post seemed to imply that the Paladin's class mechanics were a major part of what defined the class, such that a Chaotic Good 'Liberator' with mostly the same mechanics (Find/Replace Law with Chaos) is an abomination whether or not you "add insult to injury" by calling it a Paladin as well. In my experience, people who think that tend to frame it in terms of balance considerations (i.e. "we cannot allow the Munchkins to get their grubby hands on Divine Grace").

Nevertheless, it's an argument I wanted to head off.

Let me put this way: I have never advocated for Paladins to be objectively stronger than the Fighter, the Ranger, or any other class. Although mechanics play a large role, this does Not mean overpowered paladins.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

I suppose the purpose of this kind of threads is to try to show Paizo how much love with in the player base a certain mechanic has (or has not), so they can "count votes" and act in concordance.

If so, my vote is Paladins should die in a pile of fire. We recently had a very good Strange Aeaon Adventure Path in my group. As always happens with Paizo's APs, there were a couple of very interesting situations where the players had to think about nuanced moral grey situations. Such as dealing with clearly dangerous and mad people to get things back, delving into necromantic evil books, trading with evil creatures, and more.

By "very interesting situations" I mean "they would be interesting situations if the group did not have a Paladin". There were other LG players in the group. Also NG, and N. Some of them wanted to debate if they should or should not do those "necessary evil to defeat a greater evil" stuff that Paizo loves to put in their APs. But we also had a Paladin. Who loses his powers if he do un-paladin things, turning him into a walking beatstick with no purpose. So everybody set aside the moral debate, because they had a paladin and they did not want to screw the paladin player.

Paladin code of honor isn't bad. It's similar to, say, playing a character with addherence to Bushido, or whatever. However, tying that code of honor into the mechanics, (such as "you lose all your powers if you do X"), means THE ENTIRE GROUP is forced to play a certain way, without exploring other options.

That sucks.

So count this post as a plea to change Paladins adherence to LG, with mechanics tied to it, Paizo.

I think there is 0 incentive for Paizo to make non-LG Paladins.

Here is why:

None of the PF 1st edition players are not going to play 2nd because they *didn't* change the Paladin. IE if they kept the status quo.

It is unlikely that they will turn off completely new players because one class has an alignment restriction.

The Paladin player base *does* have a number of players who are VERY passionate about LG only Paladins who *will* quit if the Paladin is changed.

So:

Option 1: Keep the Paladin as is:

Pro: Keep hardcore Paladin fans happy.

Con: Continue to annoy players who want the "powers" without the price.

Option 2: Change the Paladin by ditching alignment:

Pro: Make some annoyed players happy.

Con: Lose a number of players.

-----

One option doesn't gain or lose players.

One option probably doesn't gain players, but will lose players.

Only one of those two options makes business sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Alistair wrote:
KILL ALIGNMENTS PLEASE

Why?

Alignment is useful. It helps provide quick shorthand for characterization. From a DM perspective, it's useful for the many, many NPCs that get thrown our way. It can influence tactics and motivations without spending paragraphs detailing such.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

It is unlikely that they will turn off completely new players because one class has an alignment restriction.

Anything to proof/back up this, besides your hunch?


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Or: Unshackling paladins from a stupid restriction doesn't prohibit those who want to play LG paladins from still playing LG paladins.


Another thing: Gary Gygax didn’t create the Paladin ex nihilo. This tradition comes way back from the days of the mythical (not historical) Paladins of Charlemagne and the legends of King Arthur and the 12 Knights of the Round. These are centuries old archetypes, which Gygax simply codified in gaming terms while developing 0e.
Although certain specifics clearly are clouded but the ethics of that time, the overall values and goals of the Paladin are the same. Let’s keep that way.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Option 1: Keep the Paladin as is:

Pro: Keep hardcore Paladin fans happy.

Con: Continue to annoy players who want the "powers" without the price.

Option 2: Change the Paladin by ditching alignment:

Pro: Make some annoyed players happy.

Con: Lose a number of players.

-----

One option doesn't gain or lose players.

One option probably doesn't gain players, but will lose players.

Only one of those two options makes business sense.

Option 1: Keep Paladin as-is

Pro: Maladaptive players who refuse to acknowledge the need for class flexibility for streamlining get to lord it over everyone else.
Con: Class withers and dies from a failure to adapt with the rest of the game.

Option 2: Ditch alignment
Pro: Flexibility
Con: Loss of tradition

Or, the option that has been brought up several times that just isn't good enough for you...

Option 3: Alter alignment restrictions to corners
Pro: Maintains the flavor of four different types of class, opens up new options, appeases multiple camps of Good and Evil characters, potentially streamlines multiple classes into one whole while still keeping the heart of the class
Con: We lose a few My Way Or The Highway Players


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:
DM Alistair wrote:
KILL ALIGNMENTS PLEASE

Why?

Alignment is useful. It helps provide quick shorthand for characterization. From a DM perspective, it's useful for the many, many NPCs that get thrown our way. It can influence tactics and motivations without spending paragraphs detailing such.

More often than not it causes arguments, particularly where Paladins are involved (ie Orc Baby Dilemma or the "if your character ends up using an unholy weapon, even if they are unaware that it is unholy, does it make the paladin fall" or the dreaded "I burn the orphanage to the ground because I'm chaotic neutral, lol!")

And, having played plenty of systems without alignments, I can say that many of these arguments just never arise. Even in 5e, which kept alignments, by making them more or less unimportant except for a few extreme cases it has opened up the field to a whole lot more roleplay potential by making players not feel straight-jacketed into alignments and having to not only police their actions but also having the other players and the DM police them too.

I honestly hope they ditch alignments or at least downplay their significance. Then again I also hope they ditch most of the Paladin class and make it more-or-less the Warpriest but that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Alistair wrote:
Scintillae wrote:
DM Alistair wrote:
KILL ALIGNMENTS PLEASE

Why?

Alignment is useful. It helps provide quick shorthand for characterization. From a DM perspective, it's useful for the many, many NPCs that get thrown our way. It can influence tactics and motivations without spending paragraphs detailing such.

More often than not it causes arguments, particularly where Paladins are involved (ie Orc Baby Dilemma or the "if your character ends up using an unholy weapon, even if they are unaware that it is unholy, does it make the paladin fall" or the dreaded "I burn the orphanage to the ground because I'm chaotic neutral, lol!")

And, having played plenty of systems without alignments, I can say that many of these arguments just never arise. Even in 5e, which kept alignments, by making them more or less unimportant except for a few extreme cases it has opened up the field to a whole lot more roleplay potential by making players not feel straight-jacketed into alignments and having to not only police their actions but also having the other players and the DM police them too.

I honestly hope they ditch alignments or at least downplay their significance. Then again I also hope they ditch most of the Paladin class and make it more-or-less the Warpriest but that's just me.

And most of those paladin arguments can boil down to "Player and GM didn't talk in advance about expectations." Please don't punish the class for their failing.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Did Paizo lose any customers when they ditched the alignment restrictions for Bards? And a good case could be made for eliminating Barbarian and Monk alignment restrictions in the new edition.

The Paladin is the only class for which alignment restrictions seem necessary, but only because it has abilities like Smite Evil that are alignment based. I don't think I would be too upset if they changed that to something like "Smite Opposed Alignment", specified code variations for each alignment, and then in the flavor text stated that most paladins are lawful good while chaotic evil paladins are so rare that they are commonly referred to as "antipaladins".


HWalsh wrote:
Con: Continue to annoy players who want the "powers" without the price.
Athaleon wrote:
And let's not try to argue that a class should be more powerful because it has a more restrictive alignment. One, no class should be more powerful than another of the same level; aside from everything else it makes levels themselves pointless. Two, many other classes are more powerful than 3.PF Paladins and don't come with the same restrictions. Three, this attitude implies that (for example) Monks should be more powerful than Barbarians—after all, their alignment is harder to maintain.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Con: Continue to annoy players who want the "powers" without the price.

You keep repeating this on any number of threads. It isn't true. There are a vast, vast, vast number of players who DO NOT CARE about whichever paladin power that you are trying to keep them from -- most of which aren't covered by that tradition bit as an aside -- and simply believe there should be an -equivalent- type of being for other alignments. That Lawful Good doesn't own the mold for holy warrior with interesting powers.

There is no One True Way. And I'd wager that they'd lose more players -- or at least irritate them -- by continuing to perpetrate the idea that there is.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Another thing: Gary Gygax didn’t create the Paladin ex nihilo. This tradition comes way back from the days of the mythical (not historical) Paladins of Charlemagne and the legends of King Arthur and the 12 Knights of the Round. These are centuries old archetypes, which Gygax simply codified in gaming terms while developing 0e.

Although certain specifics clearly are clouded but the ethics of that time, the overall values and goals of the Paladin are the same. Let’s keep that way.

Gary Gygax also created "elf" as the equivalent of a class, making all elfs pretty much the same: a fighter-mage user who cast a few spells but also used a sword.

However, the game has evolved since then, and now we have elves of different classes. Including Paladins. And a paladin of elven ascendancy will probably have very different roots than Charlemagne, King Arthur, and the christian templars. It will also have very different ethos, and ideals, and will fight for a very different kind of greater good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:


Gary Gygax also created "elf" as the equivalent of a class, making all elfs pretty much the same.

However, the game has evolved since then, and now we have elves of different classes. Including Paladins. And a paladin of elven ascendancy will probably have very different roots than Charlemagne, King Arthur, and the christian templars. It will also have very different ethos, and ideals, and will fight for a very different kind of greater good.

I never spoke of a racial restriction. Elves also weren't invented by Gygax. If Elves want their special heroes - with different ethos from the paladin - then let them have their own heroes.

By the way, they already have it. It's called Bladesinger.


You didn't spoke of a racial restriction, but you advocated for Paladins of every world in the system to be based on a specific kind of warriors from christian Europe.

That "worked" back in the day, when only humans could be paladins, and worlds were based around christian Europe. Today we don't have such restrictions, so basing paladin elves, paladin dwarves, paladin halflings, paladin stryx, paladin catfolks and paladin humans from Akiton in Distant Worlds on christian europe might not work that well as the original paladin did in the very limited options setting of Gygax. The ethos of elves, dwarves, halflins, strixes, catfolks and dudes from Akiton differ too much from christian Europe.


Based on Christian Europe? Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Maztica, Al-Qadim, etc. these are not Christian by any means, but paladins remain the same - even if this means banning paladins from the setting.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

*Warms himself by the thread, humming joyfully*

Paladins?! Pfff...outdated concept! Heros come in all shapes and sizes these days! Why should an old hackneyed elitist exclusive group have the monopoly for heroics? or goodness and purity for the matter?

No I say! When 2.0 rolls around I hope they are put against the wall and put down! Hopefully another more deserving concept will rise from their ashes!

*Chuckles menacingly*

Might take most of their ilk with them! like 'Good' and 'Neutral' and all that hokum about being locked into a single moral state of being judged by some intangible, vague and untenable, yet thoroughly compromised "laws" too!

*Takes a swig of brandy, while staring into the flames of the thread*

Now Evil...
Evil you know where you have. Evil, you know, will always find a way.
Where would you're heros be without fiends to slay or brigands to hunt?
No Evil always stays. They may change much...but Me and my ilk will always be around.
Because you heroes need us, to feel 'good' about yourselves, to feel fulfilled, to feel a reason for you dreary existence!

*Takes another swig and burst of laughing*


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm. Paizo will lose me as a customer unless Paladin returns to it's pre-Gygax roots and has a gun and is willing to travel. I will not budge.


Igwilly wrote:
Based on Christian Europe? Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Maztica, Al-Qadim, etc. these are not Christian by any means, but paladins remain the same - even if this means banning paladins from the setting.

Yes, based on Christian Europe. That's why many of those settings banned Paladins.

You said it yourself. They are based on Charlemagne's paladins. Which was in Christian Europe last time I checked. In the old days of Gygax, those Paladins were locked for any non-humans, and their abilities and powers all of them were focused on christian knights with plate armor, heavy horse, and lay on hands. None of those apply to, say, seafaring elves, artic dwarves, or jungle halflings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, time for my opinion

Bias and Preference notice: I've liked the concept of paladin since I started playing in 1e. I've played paladins ever since, read most of the literature around them outside of the game and took the time to read every iteration of them since Chainmail. Along with Bard and Witch it's one of my favorite classes and I've spent a lot of time developing homebrew lore around them.

1. The most important thing for the core ruleset is to allow players options for the kinds of paladins that they might want to run, not to force things on people based on lore or what was done historically.

2. The responsibility of the DM is to take part in the narrative, take the rules and create something that agrees with his or her sensibilities AND allows his or her players to have fun. Asking the publisher to do things a certain way is unnecessary and lazy.

My sensibilities tell me that the concept of paladin transcends alignment once you take it away from its Christian Europe narrative. If you're running a game that holds on to that narrative strongly then keep it the way it was. If your campaign is different do what you will.

Note that it doesn't take much meta thought to argue that the idea of lawful good powers being the only ones that can empower martial paragons is flawed. If you can have evil priests, you can have evil paladins. The important thing though is making sure that they're just as rare in the world.

Last thought. Making something rare does not mean that you make it "player rare". Characters are supposed to be special. Doesn't mean that if your group is 50% paladins that the world is more than one tenth of one percent paladins. You just have to think it through and have your world be internally consistent with what you want.

Regardless, not a rules issue.


willuwontu wrote:

Honestly they should remove paladin as a core class and make it a Prestige Class instead.

If they keep it as a core class they should change it's requirement to be within one step of LG.

Also, honestly in my opinion, they should remove paladin and antipaladin altogether and make a new class, let's say champion. The new class should be the Martial Paragon of it's alignment (similar to how cleric is the Spellcasting Paragon of it's alignment) and gain features based on it's alignment.

nah, call it Crusader


oh yeah... keep forgetting. but there is some evidence that King ARthur was a druid king and lived in what is now Scotland.

the knights of the round table with its Christianity in plate mail and stuff was a medieval or renaissance or Victorian thing. so either way, there is no telling what was what without true evidence ( in Arthur's case. his body for carbon dating) and it would put in to wonder what his knights were really like.

in the days there was NO England, Scotland, or Whales; only Britannia.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Yes, based on Christian Europe. That's why many of those settings banned Paladins.

You said it yourself. They are based on Charlemagne's paladins. Which was in Christian Europe last time I checked. In the old days of Gygax, those Paladins were locked for any non-humans, and their abilities and powers all of them were focused on christian knights with plate armor, heavy horse, and lay on hands. None of those apply to, say, seafaring elves, artic dwarves, or jungle halflings.

As I have said it: other groups can have their own champions. Just don't spoil the classics ;)

Steelfiredragon wrote:

oh yeah... keep forgetting. but there is some evidence that King ARthur was a druid king and lived in what is now Scotland.

the knights of the round table with its Christianity in plate mail and stuff was a medieval or renaissance or Victorian thing. so either way, there is no telling what was what without true evidence ( in Arthur's case. his body for carbon dating) and it would put in to wonder what his knights were really like.

in the days there was NO England, Scotland, or Whales; only Britannia.

It doesn't matter. We are talking about Myth, not real-world History :)


sure it does, because until proven, that is a myth too.
well with the exception of there was no England, Scotland or Whales part; that is true for the time period of a by gone age.

now don't get me started on what I think about Robin Hood.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
You didn't spoke of a racial restriction, but you advocated for Paladins of every world in the system to be based on a specific kind of warriors from christian Europe.
Oh, honestly now, when Paizo's own artwork has had a stern Wakandan valkyrie in the role for the past nine years?
Quote:
The ethos of elves, dwarves, halflins, strixes, catfolks and dudes from Akiton differ too much from christian Europe.

I reject the implicit premise that the concept of "good" is inexorably bound to "christian Europe", and therefore possibly offensive to the sensibilities of those gamers who don't like either Christians or Europeans.

*sigh*

Of course they'll be making goblins (those lovable balls of unrepentant arson and murder) a playable race now, or so I've heard.... (Because if there's one thing RPGs need more of to load upon the shoulders of harried GMs, it's catering to the chaotic-evil player demographic.)

_____
(Disclosure: I love the alignment system. It is the heart & soul of the game as much as rolling dice. Even if it does not often or ever affect your character on a personal level, it's always lurking in the background like a cosmic force reminding you that there are potential consequences, and rightfully so for any pattern of behavior. IMO the wording in the 2nd edition PHB is less laden with qualifiers and therefore superior. P2E should swipe it lock, stock, and barrel.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Because if there's one thing RPGs need more of, it's catering to the chaotic-evil player demographic.

Nor even to the lolrandom chaotic-oh-so-quirky! XDDDD player demographic. I don't know what it is about Small races that attracts those people, but now they'll be even more insufferable than when they were Halfling Rogues or Gnome Illusionists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Of course they'll be making goblins (those lovable balls of unrepentant arson and murder) a playable race now, or so I've heard.... (Because if there's one thing RPGs need more of to load upon the shoulders of harried GMs, it's catering to the chaotic-evil player demographic.)

Maybe the last AP is about how Goblins got their act together, learned to love reading, and work together to accomplish things?

100% gonna play a LG Goblin Paladin who is well-read, thoughtful, and erudite.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Another thing: Gary Gygax didn’t create the Paladin ex nihilo. This tradition comes way back from the days of the mythical (not historical) Paladins of Charlemagne and the legends of King Arthur and the 12 Knights of the Round. These are centuries old archetypes, which Gygax simply codified in gaming terms while developing 0e.

Great. However well they fit into a different game 6 editions back and a thousand years ago on a different world, I'm not seeing the applicability for PF2 or Golarion, or why that arbitrary codification by a single man (who shockingly wasn't responsible for the whole of D&D, let alone RPGs) would be relevant.

Shall PF2 be mandated to have a polearm appendix as well? It seems about as relevant.

If there is a paladin in PF2, it should be tailored to fit PF2, not OD&D.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see the Paladin remain Lawful Good. Thing of it is, they are one of the most powerful classes because they have to live up to an RP ideal that is difficult. Thats what keeps the power of the class in check.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Except they aren't, it isn't and it doesn't.

Even if it did, it wouldn't be an RP ideal. 'I have to behave a certain way to keep my power' isn't living up to an ideal- its being selfish for personal power.


Voss wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Another thing: Gary Gygax didn’t create the Paladin ex nihilo. This tradition comes way back from the days of the mythical (not historical) Paladins of Charlemagne and the legends of King Arthur and the 12 Knights of the Round. These are centuries old archetypes, which Gygax simply codified in gaming terms while developing 0e.

Great. However well they fit into a different game 6 editions back and a thousand years ago on a different world, I'm not seeing the applicability for PF2 or Golarion, or why that arbitrary codification by a single man (who shockingly wasn't responsible for the whole of D&D, let alone RPGs) would be relevant.

Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos themes still appear a lot. The concept of Paladin still is in people's minds. There are many people who like it and would be upset if that changed.

And it wasn't arbitrary at all. It was quite a fit for the Paladin.

Also, remember: I'm not talking about specific alignment mechanics. I'm not talking about everything being coded into nine alignments, or having "alignment: X-only". I'm talking about maintaining the psyche of classes like the Paladin intact.
There's another thread here who presents a great suggestion; you should check it ;)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

HWalsh, watching you talk down on people who want to play an entirely reasonable play-style ("Martial heavy emphasis with mild healing and buffing, driven by a strong personality") by acting like they don't want to 'pay prices' for 'powers' is insulting. Combined with your talking down on rap singers earlier (which strikes me as potentially kind of racist), at this point I'm comfortable saying this: You are acting in bad faith. You are debating in bad faith.

Stop it.

That said, to address a proposal others raised about offering a class that isn't called Paladin, but has similar play mechanics: Sold. I'll gladly buy into that class. It can be called the Crusader or whatever. So long as it has "Cha-driven, SIGNIFICANT emphasis on Martial behavior with support as a secondary feature" I am absolutely happy with it.

I'm not trying to banish the classical shining knight hero from Pathfinder. I'm trying to make sure other alignments can use the basic set of toys I described above.

That's all I want. If changing the label a bit calms down the crowd that was playing back when Gygax first got D&D started, great; do it. Watching the worst of them talk down on people for wanting a reasonable, fun thing in this updated version of the game is wearing on my patience, however.

I'm excusing myself from this thread before I start doing things that will probably be quite popular, but also justifiably bring moderators down on me.


Voss wrote:
J-Bone wrote:
I would love to see the Paladin remain Lawful Good. Thing of it is, they are one of the most powerful classes because they have to live up to an RP ideal that is difficult. Thats what keeps the power of the class in check.
Except they aren't, it isn't and it doesn't.

They're one of the few classes with broad immunities. -- If paladins seem underpowered versus other martials in your games, it's because your GM has been coddling you or running the opposition inefficiently.

-- If today's mission is manning the defenses at the Worldwound, you want paladins 10' away at all times.


I don't want to see Paladins end up like they are in 5e with a whole bunch of oaths and codes that don't resemble the original ideal of a Paladin at all. In fact, the main reason I'm still loyal to Paizo and Pathfinder is because I LOATHE most of the 5e rules, and will be very disappointed if Pathfinder just copies 5e. Paladins have been the bastions of Law and Goodness for decades, and taking that away ruins the flavor and legacy of the class. Want to play an Evil Paladin? Well, Antipaladin is right over there. Want to be able to be Neutral and smite Chaos? Well, give Hellknight a try. But leave Paladins as they are. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So just gonna say that I'd love to see paladins remain lawful good. But this is just personal preference. Love the alignment system too.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Bone wrote:
I would love to see the Paladin remain Lawful Good. Thing of it is, they are one of the most powerful classes because they have to live up to an RP ideal that is difficult. Thats what keeps the power of the class in check.
Voss wrote:
Except they aren't, it isn't and it doesn't.

Sadly, this.

Speaking as someone who loves the mechanics of Paladins, mind. They are a solid class more or less, but FAR from powerful. I would consider them just below or maybe on-par with the likes of Magus, Inquisitor, or Bard, definitely well below the full casters, but above the Usual Suspects of Fighter, Monk, and Rogue at the bottom of the totem pole.


any non lawful goof paladin AKA the good aligned crusader must have:
Smite Evil
divine grace
aura of courage
and divine health

and I don't care if you think it weakens the paladin. I don't want ot play your character or your idea of the paladin.

if the paladin looses its lawful part good, there is nothing but its code that makes it required to be lawful anyway and the code is loosely worded


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Since we have 2nd Edition...

I am taking the chance to try a plea that I fully expect will fall on deaf ears... I feel that I have to try though regardless...

We have a chance to bring the Paladin back...

Years ago Gary Gygax, the reason we have this game, had a class that he loved more than any other. The Paladin. The idea of a warrior of good that was the epitome of virtue. He was the knight in shining armor who righted wrongs and triumphed over evil.

Paladins were NOT "just" a class...

They were special... And they had special rules...

What were those rules?

1. You had to be Lawful Good

2. You couldn't become a Paladin you had one chance to answer the call and if you didn't, that was it.

3. The Paladin required a serious mind and strict dedication, you couldn't leave the Paladin and come back.

I, personally want these things again. I don't want it to be watered down. Gygax intended it to be special, I think that, since we owe pretty much this entire past time to him, it is the least we can do.

Nope. Gary was great for what he created, but some of his ideas were bad ideas. Being an innovator doesn't make everything that someone does correct.

Since Gary did create the game and want people to enjoy it he would want most of us to be happy, and if us being happy means that we are able to choose a Paladin he'd be ok with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

co created

but yeah neither of them would have cared at all if it made us being happy.

101 to 150 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition All Messageboards